Post

On May 21, David Hoffman liquidated his ETH holdings that he had held for 6 years. He is the co-founder of Bankless and one of the most steadfast evangelists of ETH. When the news broke, the Ethereum community exploded. Some said he had betrayed, others said he was crazy. Three months later, the assets he switched to: LIT rose 369%, ZEC rose 110%, NEAR rose 54%. How much did ETH rise in the same period? 17%. He wasn’t crazy. He outperformed ETH by over 100 percentage points. First, admit the fact: this is not luck. Hoffman’s switching path was fully disclosed in June: after liquidating ETH, the funds were deployed in two batches, 50% equally buying VVV, NEAR, ZEC, HYPE, and 50% heavily invested in LIT. He publicly shared the entry prices for each coin—NEAR around $1.4, HYPE around $45, ZEC around $560, LIT around $1.35. And now? ZEC broke through $1650, with a market cap of $27.4 billion, ranking ninth in global crypto market cap. Grayscale Zcash ETF (ZCSH) has had net inflows for 16 consecutive days, accumulating over $500 million in inflows. Whale Garrett Jin’s 3-month short position was forced to close, losing $36.13 million. NEAR rose 84% in a week, 115% in a month. What catalyzed this? The launch of confidential perpetual contracts and NEAR Intents weekly trading volume surpassing $1 billion. The cumulative trading volume has exceeded $31.4 billion. LIT hit an all-time high, breaking $5.5. Calculated from Hoffman’s entry price, it has risen over 300%. This is not luck. He saw what others didn’t three months in advance. But—"the correct result" does not equal "correct logic." Hoffman himself admitted a harsh fact in his article. He calls it the "blue-chip curse." BTC and ETH carry too much technical debt and look technically outdated by 2026. Fewer people are willing to buy large-cap blue chips, simply because the returns aren’t there. Hoffman’s exact words: "If the number one and number two don’t rise 10x from here, how will our industry move forward?" That’s a hard truth. But I want to ask a question he might not have fully considered. If everyone is switching positions, who will take over the blue-chip holdings? This is not a rhetorical question. What is Hoffman’s strategy essentially? Switching from blue chips to newcomers, profiting from the "cognitive gap." He realized 3 months earlier than the market that ZEC’s privacy narrative would be revalued, and saw NEAR’s Intents data exploding 3 months earlier. So he could buy ZEC at $560 and NEAR at $1.4. But the cognitive gap has a fatal flaw: it will be closed. When everyone sees ZEC up 369% and NEAR up 84%, the cognitive gap disappears. If you rush in now, you’re not doing what Hoffman did 3 months ago; you’re taking over the positions he built 3 months ago. More importantly, the question Hoffman raised himself—if the total crypto market cap doesn’t expand significantly, switching positions is just a zero-sum game. He made it clear: unless the total crypto market cap grows from $3 trillion to $30 trillion, the value created by these newcomers will likely be captured by traditional channels like Robinhood and Coinbase, rather than flowing back to BTC and ETH. In plain language: the newcomers win, but the overall industry pie doesn’t get bigger. Hoffman’s switching logic might be correct. ZEC’s privacy narrative is indeed being revalued, NEAR’s Intents data is indeed exploding, and LIT’s deflationary flywheel is indeed turning. But his conclusion has a fatal premise—the total crypto market cap must expand significantly. If this premise holds, switching is value discovery. If it doesn’t, switching is just a zero-sum game—you earn what others lose. There’s never a shortage of people making money. What’s lacking are people who know why they’re making money. $BTC $ETH $ZEC #BTC冲高回落，市场轮动开始了吗？